Don’t forget to check out these links. Great sites and excellent information =======>

“Check this out. A high school girl says it how it is”

Quote of the CENTURY :-

“In the case of climate change, if we follow their instructions and the catastrophe doesn’t happen, they’ll claim the measures worked. If temperatures continue to rise, they’ll say we didn’t do enough.”

Scientists, people and officials who do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming are not fit for office!

Please click on the cartoon and see it full screen-

Far more interesting that way.

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (who is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment), is accompanied President Obama and Al Gore.

Does Rajendra believe in climate change?

Well he does have a MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University and a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics.

He has had a number of directorships including one at the Indian Oil Corporation and has been awarded the prestigious Padma Bhushan by the Indian government and ‘Officer of the Legion of Honour’ by the French government.

We can tell from this that he is certainly an authority on Anthropogenic Global Warming in his own right. (not)

With his PhD in Economics he will no doubt be aware of the effect on the world, should governments adopt the recommendations of the IPCC.

In a special report, The Sunday Telegraph said “Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a (climate) scientist, as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics, he has no qualifications in climate science. What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Pachauri has established a worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies that have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s policy recommendations.”

Well one of the catches in telling huge porkies and spreading copious BS around the world is that you start to believe your own BS.

So Rajendra one way or the other, has invested so much in the dangers of global warming that he has to believe his own BS. He may personally gain so much financially, it is fitting that he wears the clothes of his own making.

However maybe it should be Ki Moon with the crown.

President Obama believes in climate change because he will do anything to woo the voter, besides he would not be fit for office if he did not respect the UN.

I hope for his sake that he has a Plan B.

Al Gore dosn’t really believe in global warming but has also positioned himself to become ultra wealthy (hence the smug look and gesture) especially should Rajendra Pachauri become head of a world government. (which is what the UN will be once the revenues and commissions from world carbon trading and a signed Copenhagen agreement start flooding in)

What would one expect from someone who buys carbon credits to offset the huge “carbon footprint” of his home from a company he owns?

Of course he will continue to admire the emperor’s new clothes and even regularly suggest that the emperor deck himself out in even greater and more expensive(for the tax payers of the world) gowns and uniforms.

Helen Clark prime minister of New Zealand (emeritus) and John Key current prime minister of New Zealand hold the invisible train for the emperor.

Helen Clark is looking daggers, because at number three on the UN she feels that at least she should have the Empresses job but she knows better than to wear invisible clothes(Thank God).

John Key looks a bit weary but he will do his bit to cooperate with the IPCC because back home it buys him votes from a gullible New Zealand public.

Behind them marches Gordon Brown who is ready to permanently mortgage the UK economy in the name of Anthropogenic CO2 Induced Climate Change. He marches even though the UK public are gradually catching on to the depth of the lies and how much they are likely to be shafted.

Also behind marches Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia who believes so passionately in climate change he tried to ram an ETS bill through the Australian Senate.

Unfortunately when he tried to make a deal with the leader of the opposition, which if successful, would have ensured the ETS scheme passing into law, the opposition quickly fired their leader and elected another, on the condition that he was not a believer in Anthropogenic Climate Change, which ruined the deal.

Hence the sad look on Kevin Rudd’s countenance.

Hans Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes” the meaning of which was always lost on me as a child, illustrates the current climate change hysteria perfectly.

One can argue about ice pack melting, weather being measurably warmer recently, hurricanes more common and more dangerous, the effect of ocean levels changing etc until the cows come home but the real question is :-

“Can something be done about it?”

Actually the answer to that question is:-

“NO”

and you don’t need to be a scientist or highly qualified person to figure that out.

Neither should you be dismayed to realise that humans cannot yet control the climate any more than good ole King Canute could control the tide.

I’m with the church on this one, only GOD whoever or whatever he/she may be can control the climate! So Far!

So lets get out and save the planet from the real dangers it faces, like heavy metal contamination, pollution of water, noxious gases (of which CO2 is not a member), garbage filling our oceans and landfills and the like and at least enjoy the warmer weather while it lasts.

By the way, the notion that warmer weather causes deserts, icecap degradation and worldwide starvation etc is another porky. We should be more afraid of global cooling which history shows is the real danger to mankind and other living things.

Boring Bits:

Just to share with you my reasonings behind all this.

I mean why else would I be so disrespectful towards Rajendra Pachauri and President Obama?

Anyway lets put our wonderful brains (bequeathed to most of us by the above mentioned God) to work and find about about things.

Didn’t we all at primary school study the vikings, Eric the Red and the colonisation of Greenland and voyages to Vinland?

I did and I also know that a Viking “Long Ship” is simply little more than a large undecked rowing boat, and during the Medieval Warm Period it was possible to row (and occasionally sail if the wind was favourable) these boats between Europe and North America. http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/vinland/archeo.html

It was warmer back in those days, so warm in fact that the vikings settled in Greenland and had dairy farms and a working community and culture for about 400 years.

Unfortunately the weather closed in on them. Global cooling occurred, (known as the “Little Ice Age” and one way or another, by about the 15th century the community at Greenland was abandoned.

and what is fascinating to me is that the archaeologists had to remove layers of PERMAFROST to examine the remains. This is mentioned in several accounts and probably more if you can read Danish. The archaeologists also stated that this was a wonderful find because the site had been frozen for the last 500 years.

To me this says “Greenland was warmer than the present because I am quite sure that dairy farming etc. is not possible where the land is subject to permafrost!”

Although things may be getting warmer, we haven’t got warm enough to melt the permafrost at Gården under Sandet yet.

2. At a place called Schnidejoch in Switzerland (sometime spelt Schneidejoch) all of a sudden medieval, roman and stone age artifacts are being discovered emerging from the ice and snow. It appears that this area has been used a short cut between North Italy and the Bernese upper country for a number of periods in the past. In fact the artifacts appear to relate to only four different epochs, The late Stone Age, the Minoen Warm Period, the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warm Period.

Even the remains of a roman guest house has been found a few hundred meters below the pass.

It appears that because of the current retreat of glaciers the pass is opening again!

There are many important issues to consider from the graph above these paragraphs.

The sky-blue line, which corresponds to the boreholes obtained from Greenland, shows that the amplitude of change of temperature at those latitudes was wider than the other proxies; for example, it is wider than the change of temperature at the Sargasso Sea surface, where the amplitude of change of temperature could be the narrowest change compared with the other proxies.

The green line corresponds to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere obtained from the study of bubbles of air trapped in the ice at the Vostok ice core. The line is almost smooth from 11000 to 5000 years ago, and it starts to ascend when the amplitude of the change of temperature decreases (red line), that is, becomes narrower. That time corresponds precisely to 5000 years ago, not 250 years ago, related to the industrial revolution. Actually, the increase of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began 5000 years before present.

The red line is the average of the change of temperature deduced from all the proxies represented here. It is evident that the sharp increase of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is closely related to the very narrow amplitude of the change of temperature given in the last 250 years. Consequently, it suggests that the increase of the concentration of the atmospheric CO2 cannot be attributed to human activities, but to natural phenomena.

The global change of temperature during the Holocene Epoch has been from 2.25 K to 7 K. In the last two centuries the change has been only 0.52 K. Thus, the global warming throughout the last decades has not been unique or higher than in the past.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Lewis, M. W. The Flight from Science and Reason-Radical Environmental Philosophy and the Assault on Reason. Editors: Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt and Martin W. Lewis. 1996. New York, NY.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when globaltemperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

You may be aware that IPCC reports typically use a mixture of direct data and proxies (measurements from tree rings and ice cores etc) in their essential graphical reports. They certainly do this with their CO2 level reporting as well. Just scrutinise their graphs carefully!

But proxy deductions are not as accurate as direct measurements so why not use them?

DIRECT MEASUREMENTS OF CO2 ARE AVAILABLE FROM 1812!

What do direct measurements of CO2 tell us? Check for yourself on the graph and report below!

Thats all for now folks, just keep right on voting for our “Anthropogenic Climate Change” leaning government. (I hate to say that they actually believe in it), but so long as us, the voters want them to, they will happily tax us and if Gordon Brown and others are examples, simply ruin our economies and standard of living and create severe hardships for us all trying to chase after CO2 a friendly gas upon which all life depends which at higher concentrations improves tree growth and agriculture and food production and most certainly any Emissions Trading Scheme will have zero effect on the health of our planet.

PS. I have recently been alerted to this documentary which shows things far better than I can write them.

It includes interviews of some IPCC associated scientists, a number of other scientist eminent in this field AND the co-founder of Green Peace. Allow for over an hour to view.

I am going to lobby my local TV channel to show it. It certainly is of sufficient quality so why dont we all do the same?

PPS: I have just been alerted to these following web sites. I cant believe they have got so little publicity but if you want a good solid and well referenced review of the Climate change science, which has the support and recommendation of what looks like most of the scientists in the US then take a read.

They are not a source for my blog but certainly they share many if not all conclusions.

Considering that many governments and agencies such as the United Nations endorse the global warming theory and the mass of foundations springing up everywhere collecting money for “further research” and so on, I understand how many people must be concerned with the perceived danger of Global Warming.

I have to tell you some truths and facts about what you are being told. At this stage I will leave it with the reader to contemplate why such powerful agencies and wealthy
powerful people should take such interest in such a controversial “science”.

Please bear mind, that in order to reduce the temperature of the world by limiting or abolishing the production of CO2, is a horrendously
expensive task world wide.

This attempt in itself, regardless of what the climate is doing, can only lead to disastrous rises in the cost of energy which in turn will leadto economic collapse of world economies along with of course disastrous effects
on the world populace (AKA starvation). (Yup I majored in economics – class of 1981 – and for me this is easy to see).

You see, our economies are based on fossil energy, Coal, Gas and Oil etc and unless equally or less expensive substitutes are found,
without these things, most of us will starve and/or freeze to death.

But perhaps, as you are no doubt postulating in your mind, should we actually need to save the planet, maybe the above cost will be
worthwhile?

So be sure, no matter what your beliefs are, be assured that, at the very least, trying to cool the planet is a very serious thing to
attempt. Therefore we should not go down this road unless we have absolute proof that humans are warming
the planet and that the predictions we are hearing from some sources are
scientifically confirmed.

Fortunately, there is a scientific method which allows us to decide whether the above is true or not. If you read Karl Popper and if you wish to take it even further, William of Ockham, you can find the basis of the scientific disproof of a hypothesis. This quick video will help. Richard Feynman on Hypothesis or Law

Apply Richard Feynman’s method to the data on Dr Spencers graph as follows a) Note that the “73 CLIMATE MODELS” on Dr Spencer’s graph results are all separate hypothesis’. A computer model for climate is simply a series of assumptions about the climate, carbon dioxide and solar energy etc. (The climate and the atmosphere are far too large, complicated and random to enable any but a few basic facts to be included).
There are many of these models created by a number of institutions. The computer uses these to predict global temperatures for the future. These are the “guesses”, that Richard Feynman mentions
b) The “OBSERVATIONS” on Dr Spencer’s graph are the facts – Nature,Experiment or observation – described by Richard Feynman. These are observed
or empirical facts which may or may not support the hypothesis’

This is a good example of Popper’s disproval of a hypothesis. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, When one compares the result with a) Nature, b)
Experiment or c) Observation and the result does not agree, “Its wrong– IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT IS THE KEY TO SCIENCE”

Therefore once you compare the results of the computer models with the observations on Dr Spencer’s graph, it
is very obvious that the models fall under Feynman’s rejection. (Considering what I describe above at 8 a) this is hardly surprising).

There is therefore no scientific evidence that the earth is warming, (or cooling), other than what has already been observed throughout
history.

Unfortunately, governments like excuses to issue new laws. As most governments nowadays, (including that of New Zealand), are sliding
steadily to the left, this unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, gives many governments around the world an excuse to issue more
laws and regulations based on these unreliable computer models – each of which we must obey at the cost of trading a little of our freedom and democracy.

It is easily understood how difficult it is to give up beliefs that one has accumulated, but one must remain logical and scientific in these things.

However -Make no mistake, What I have described here is REAL SCIENCE. If you cannot get a similar explanation from some other site or some sort of rally or from someone is calling you a “denier” and tries to shut you down – they are the denier(s)! – DENIER(S) of SCIENCE.

Thanks a million to all of you who have steadily visited with very little effort on my part to attract you here.

Have been getting a lot of references from facebook. I’m not quite sure what is being discussed there but it all seems real healthy to me.

I came across this video which says it all.

Welcome to the seventeenth year since the planet stopped warming. As for all these officials in the UN, IPCC, EPA and the government of New Zealand, (to name just a few), who are busy enjoying the junket of AGW that allows them to extract more taxes from the normal people so they can spend it on “fighting” global warming. I say P**s on you.

Cheers

Roger

PS A fact that many people are now aware of is that Climate Change, Global Warming or what ever, was born from the United Nations, the aim it seems, in order to manufacture a world crisis.

The UN objectives that it has been working on since its inception.

Bureaucracies always gain a life of their own, and as bureaucracies go, the UN has to be among the biggest. It would help if the top officials indeed all responsible officials, were democratically elected but that seems to have never been the case.

Anyway the UN is in your governments legislation, local government and your education system. And although this appears to be good, and indeed most of us welcome it.

I have spent a lot of time studying the various UN programs and when you go below the surface, just a little, one finds the fact that its a hidden army of tigers who are not in the least bit friendly.